Suella! Braverman!

They should re-instate her so that she can be fired again.

#Omnishambles

How much money has been spunked away on this?

Also, I think that the unit of wasted cash should be the Mone, with 1 Mn being £200,000,000.

If she was assaulted by a misguided right-wing EDL type fascist, who she stoked up to protect the country from wrong’uns,  would they get a place in heaven?

It really was a no-win situation for the govt. Ruling for would have been a nightmare to actually enact and this ruling against, especially worded in this fashion is resounding critiscism of their position and a clear indication that money and time has been wasted. An open goal for the labour party if only they weren’t defending an own goal at the other end of the pitch….

Paradoxically, I suspect the only winner here will be Braverman and her followers who can use this as an example of the wokerati plus an ineffectual PM once again thwarting the ‘will of the hard working british taxpayer’

But Suella basically wrote a letter that said whatever the outcome, it was Rishis fault. His fault if they lose the appeal, and his fault if they win the appeal and fail to implement the policy.

The irony is that the Supreme Court presumably came to the same conclusion as Suella Braverman came to…… Rwanda is a shite lawless country that treats asylum seekers very badly.

How else was it going to “deter the small boats”?

That seems to me to be a very damning judgement.  Not so much as “lose on a technicality” but ” are you mad? – it was obvious to anyone with half a brain it was illegal” 

How much money has been spunked away on this?

It ranges from the initial £120m payment to Rwanda, to about £300m I think.   And to think, that money could have housed a few homeless people. 

I particularly liked how the Supreme Court said that the plan was basically the same as a previous Israeli plan, and that was shite too.

Or at least been used to pay the salaries of some more staff to process the existing backlog of asylum seekers plus grants to help those who are successful integrate into the country.

Rwanda policy would still be unlawful even if UK were not party to European convention on human rights, says supreme court

So even if Braverman had her ” notwithstanding” clauses inserted it would still be illegal and I cannot see how those clauses would actually help at all.

It really is a devastating verdict

Appeals court was a split decision – how, given the SC assessment which was pretty unequivocal?!?

I guess that if Braverman was still Home Secretary she would be arguing for the Netanyahu solution to the problem:

At the heart of the conflict is a judiciary amendment, passed into law by a final vote of 64-0 in Israel’s Parliament last week, that limits the unelected Supreme Court’s ability to overrule governmental decisions it deems unreasonable.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/01/israels-netanyahu-rules-out-civil-war-after-mass-protests.html

Racists on twitter in uproar..

how sad must ones life be to genuinely feel threatened by immigrants. Although I suspect most don’t like immigration because of the color of their skin rather than the threat they pose ..

As I have siad before the real issue withdrawing from the ECHR is that the declaration of human rights is enshrined in the acts that set up both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and this cannot be amended without permission from those parliaments.  So even if the tories withdraw from it it will still apply in Scotland and Wales unless they take the nuclear option of closing both parliaments. 

this sets up a huge constitutional issue and people in Scotland and wales would still be able to apply to the european court for protection under the convention

I’m afraid not a single sentence of this is correct. Sections 28 and 100 of the Scotland Act 1998 are relevant.

@theotherjonv

Original appeal was split 1 for, 2 against

Lord Chief Justice (at the time, since retired) thought the Rwandan govt were jolly good fellows and would abide by international law etc etc

“However, the lord chief justice reached the opposite conclusion. Agreeing with the High Court’s decision, Burnett said he believed the procedures in place under the Rwanda agreement and assurances given by Rwanda’s government were sufficient that there was no real risk of asylum seekers being returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or inhuman treatment.

Burnett said the chances of asylum seekers being returned to their countries of origin were low because Rwanda had no agreement with those countries. ‘Extensive monitoring arrangements of those sent to Rwanda and their asylum applications provided lawful protection. Arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards’.”

If she was assaulted by a misguided right-wing EDL type fascist, who she stoked up to protect the country from wrong’uns, would they get a place in heaven?

Karma is a bitch.

Can you explain PCA?  Genuine question.  Ill have a look at the act but the two principles are correct IIRC – the ECHR is incorporated in the act and the act can only be altered with the consent of Holyrood.

Edit – I assume you mean this:  “This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland” which has no effect because the ECHR is incorporated in the act.  Westminster canmake any law they want but they cannot remove the ECHR from the act.  Withdrawing from the ECHR does not change this

Edit again – nothing in section100 alters this either

Im willing to be educated on this but I would like to see your reasoning

In fact on further reading Westminster does not even have the power to dissolve holyrood easily.  It would take primary ;legislation and a supreme court battle

F163APermanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government

(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.

(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.]

Being a grotesque incompetent failure is also a lifestyle choice it seems.

To be fair, Braverman being binned before this makes sense now, Cleverly is against any discussion on leaving the ECHR, same with Cameron, Sunak again isn’t a right wing loon, so expect a lot of Braverman/Lord Snooty/etc coming out aghast at this courts decision, but i believe Cleverly is already talking about ‘other options’ over Rwanda, so killing off this whole tragic episode!

That’s my hope anyway, the last few years has been unbelievable with Johnson/Truss and the right wing mentalists being empowered, it’s really felt that an entire nation has been run by a dozen or so people.

PCA

In Scotland, civil and political rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and provisions in the Scotland Act 1998. These rights come from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

https://www.gov.scot/policies/human-rights/

Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway.

When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”.

WTF?  Really?  That would be contempt of court surely and no chance the airlines would do something that illegal would they?

I’m gonna have to install Tor, or perhaps a burner windows vm purely to read more DM comments. Their readers appear to be apoplectic. Apparently we should leave the “EHRC” immediately 🤣

Sunak again isn’t a right wing loon

He is, don’t let the better presentation and sharp tailoring fool you.

The tories are pivoting know in a desperate attempt to not get wiped out in an election, they know they have pushed the lunacy beyond what the majority of voters feel is acceptable so are trying to read the room, instead of leading the room in vitriolic attacks.

Karma is a bitch

It’s pronounced “Braverman” 😉

WTF? Really? That would be contempt of court surely and no chance the airlines would do something that illegal would they?

Presumably 30 Pee Lee’s solution for winning the next general election is to simply ignore the result.

It is astonishing to think that not long ago this geezer was in the Labour Party, and only left because he didn’t like Jeremy Corbyn.

I’m gonna have to install Tor, or perhaps a burner windows vm purely to read more DM comments.

Vpn and private browsing should do it. You might feel the need to disinfect your phone though

the ECHR is incorporated in the act and the act can only be altered with the consent of Holyrood.

TJ – typed a whole beautiful erudite amusing insightful response (trust me!) and lost it due to 500 error. Short version: Parliament (Westminster) is sovereign. It can amend or repeal any of its own Acts any time it likes, including Human Rights Act and Scotland Act. Scotland Act doesn’t incorporate ECHR into law – it merely limits powers of Scottish Parliament and Government. It can also withdraw the UK from ECHR any time it wants.

But it’s not going to do any of these things anyway. Mind you, that’s what I said about Brexit…

I do laugh that the minister responsible for producing the law and getting it on to the statue book is now blaming the court for her own inability to get legislation though that does what she wanted.

Together again-

The Spite Girls! pic.twitter.com/6jZL9OjJua

— John Edwards (@JohnEdwards33) October 30, 2022

I do laugh that the minister responsible for producing the law and getting it on to the statue book is now blaming the court for her own inability to get legislation though that does what she wanted.

Trust me, that happens way nore often than you’d think.

couple of things wrong with that PCA – the ECHR is incorporated in the Scotland act and the act itself states that the Scottish parliament cannot be dissolved by Westminster ( see quote above)

Primacy of Westminster does stand

But yes – I have read further during this and its not as clear cut as I thought.  Ultimatly it would be up to the courts to decide if Westminster does want to remove the ECHR from the various devolved parliaments

I reckon the best thing about the Supreme Court’s ruling is that today was supposed to be the start of a campaign, led by Braverman, to leave the ECHR.

Today’s ruling has made that completely irrelevant. The crusade that Braverman was hoping to lead, and all the headlines that would have gone with it, won’t happen now.

If Braverman is unhappy with the Supreme Court’s ruling she will now have to campaign to withdraw the UK from the United Nations.

They don’t want to solve the problem, they want to keep it at the front of the news. It’s now they motivate their base.

Sunak will present some legislation that he claims will work, but it will take a year to fail. Which is all he wants. “Vote Tory to stop the boats…next time”

The voters they are after are the willing dupes who will fall for this trick time after time, like Charlie Brown and the football.

TJ – keep losing bloody responses on my phone. Probably my fault.

HRA gives effect to ECHR in UK law. References to ECHR in Scotland Act are contingent on HRA existence (read defs in Scotland Act) and only limit ability of devolved bodies to legislate inconsistently with ECHR. If no HRA, Scotland Act provisions would have no effect – and in practice, if HRA were repealed, a consequential amendment would delete those refs to HRA in Scotland Act anyway.

Clause on permanence of Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed or amended by subsequent Act of UK Parliament. UK Parliament is sovereign and can’t bind itself.

They don’t want to solve the problem, they want to keep it at the front of the news. It’s now they motivate their base

Very much this. It’s just non-virtue signalling to elderly Home Counties racists

I would imagine attempting to change the law when it involves tearing up international treaty obligations, just because you don’t like it, would be opening up a right old can of worms

Given their epic incompetence and obvious failure to even understand what the law is, it’d actually be quite funny to watch them attempt it. It’d be laugh-a-minute watching them tie themselves in knots, with the law of unintended consequences taking centre stage.

Rather than stop digging, they seem to have handed Jimmy Dimly (as John Crace refers to him) a bigger shovel 😂

TJ – keep losing bloody responses on my phone. Probably my fault.

Whats that phrase about workmen and tools?  🙂

fair enough points.  I do think it would likely end up in the supreme court for adjudication if they did try it.

I reckon the best thing about the Supreme Court’s ruling is that today was supposed to be the start of a campaign, led by Braverman, to leave the ECHR.

Today’s ruling has made that completely irrelevant. The crusade that Braverman was hoping to lead, and all the headlines that would have gone with it, won’t happen now.

If Braverman is unhappy with the Supreme Court’s ruling she will now have to campaign to withdraw the UK from the United Nations.

Whether the ECHR withdrawal is at all relevant or possible post-ruling hardly matters. The usual idiots are already filling the airwaves with various hysterical and incoherent calls to change the law/ignore the law completely. Their audience laps that shit up. Most of us know that even if Sunak tried to change the law to allow Rwanda to go ahead, it cannot happen within the time he has left before an electoral annihilation. A year just isn’t long enough to force it through and overcome a series of legal challenges. He might not even get it through the Commons.

It’s all performative from now on until the election.

A fine piece of magical thinking from Johnson

The government has the power, under Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, to ask ­parliament to deem Rwanda a safe country. That has not so far been done and it should now be done – immediately.

As if that would make the slightest difference to our obligations under international law.  You can call a cat Rover and put it in a kennel but its still a cat

Just mischief making from him saying that he would have got it working using the power of magical thinking

Just mischief making from him saying that he would have got it working using the power of magical thinking

He could try lying to the King to try and get away with it…